Submit your Article

Singer Mariah Carey is being sued for copyright infringement over her 1994 Christmas mega-hit, All I Want for Christmas is You, BBC reported.

Songwriter Andy Stone says he co-wrote a song with the same name five years earlier, arguing that Ms Carey exploited his "popularity" and "style". 

Despite sharing a title, the two songs appear musically different, but Mr Stone claims Ms Carey caused confusion and did not ask for permission. 

Ms Carey has not yet responded. 

A must-have on any Christmas playlist, Mariah Carey's All I Want for Christmas is You is one of the best known Christmas records of all time.

Since appearing on the album Merry Christmas in 1994, it has topped the charts in several countries and by 2017 had reportedly earned Ms Carey more than $60m (£48m) in royalties, according to BBC.

The song has been streamed one billion times on Spotify. 

In a recent memoir, Ms Carey admitted to composing "most of the song on a cheap little Casio keyboard".

Mr Stone, who performs under the name Vince Vance with the band Vince Vance and the Valiants, is claiming at least $20m (£16m) in damages.

The complaint says that Ms Carey, as well as her co-writer Walter Afanasieff and record label Sony Music Entertainment, have earned "undeserved profits" from the song, arguing that the defendants "knowingly, wilfully, and intentionally engaged in a campaign" to infringe copyright.

Mr Stone argues that he never gave permission for his song to be used for any purpose, including "the creation of a derivative work". 

It is not clear why the legal challenge has only been made now, 28 years after Ms Carey's song was released. 

The complaint says Mr Stone's lawyers first contacted Ms Carey and her co-defendants last year, but were "unable to come to any agreement". 

It is not unusual for different songs to have the same name, and the United States Copyright Office lists 177 entries on its website under the title All I Want for Christmas is You, BBC reported.

In 2020, Hollywood actor Johnny Depp lost a UK libel lawsuit against the Sun newspaper. But on Wednesday, he won a similar lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard in a US courtroom, BBC reported.

At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections.

The fact that the jury found that Ms Heard was guilty of defamation with an article in which she claimed she was a victim of domestic abuse means they didn't believe her testimony.

Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer, told the BBC that it's "very rare" that essentially the same case is tried on two sides of the pond and gets different results.

He believes the main factor that influenced Mr Depp's victory in America was the fact that his US trial was before a jury while his UK trial, over an article in the British tabloid that called him a "wife-beater", was before a judge only.

In both the UK and the US trial, Mr Depp's lawyers argued that Ms Heard was lying - to make their case, they attacked her character and claimed that she was in fact the abusive partner, according to BBC.

This is a common defence tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials called "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender" or "Darvo", said Mr Stephens.

The strategy turns the tables on the alleged victim, shifting the conversation away from "did the accused commit abuse" to "is the alleged victim believable". 

"They deny that they did anything, they deny they're the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the roles of the victim and the offender," Mr Stephens said.

In the UK trial, Mr Stephens said the judge recognised that strategy, and dismissed a lot of the evidence that did not directly address whether Mr Depp committed assault or not. 

"Lawyers and judges tend not to fall for it, but it's very, very effective against juries," he said. Men are more likely to believe Darvo arguments, but female jurors are also susceptible. 

"People have a paradigm in their mind of how a victim of abuse might be like and how they might behave, and of course we all know that's often false." 

Hadley Freeman, a Guardian journalist who covered both cases, told the BBC that another major difference was the fact that the American trial was televised, turning the court case into "almost a sports game".

Each twist and turn of the trial was watched by millions of people - many of whom turned to social media to express support for Mr Depp, BBC reported.

On TikTok, the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp got about 19 billion views. The jury was instructed not to read about the case online, but they were not sequestered and they were allowed to keep their phones.

Ms Freeman also thinks that vitriol that the general public lobbed against Ms Heard was a "a bit of #MeToo backlash".

"'Believe women' seems a very long time ago when it comes to Amber Heard," she said.

A jury sided Wednesday with Johnny Depp in his libel lawsuit against ex-wife Amber Heard, awarding the “Pirates of the Caribbean” actor more than $10 million and vindicating his allegations that Heard lied about Depp abusing her before and during their brief marriage, Associated Press reported.

But in a split decision, the jury also found that Heard was defamed by one of Depp’s lawyers, who accused her of creating a detailed hoax that included roughing up the couple’s apartment to look worse for police. The jury awarded her $2 million.

The verdicts bring an end to a televised trial that Depp had hoped would help restore his reputation, though it turned into a spectacle that offered a window into a vicious marriage.

Heard, who was stoic in the courtroom as the verdict was read, said she was heartbroken.

“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It’s a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously,” she said in a statement posted on her Twitter account.

Depp, who was not in court Wednesday, said “the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled.”

“I hope that my quest to have the truth be told will have helped others, men or women, who have found themselves in my situation, and that those supporting them never give up,” he said in a statement posted to Instagram, according to Associated Press.

Depp sued Heard for libel in Fairfax County Circuit Court over a December 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post describing herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse.” His lawyers said he was defamed by the article even though it never mentioned his name.

The jury found in Depp’s favor on all three of his claims relating to specific statements in the 2018 piece.

Throughout the proceedings, fans who were overwhelmingly on Depp’s side lined up overnight for coveted courtroom seats. Spectators who couldn’t get in gathered on the street to cheer Depp and jeer Heard whenever they appeared outside.

A crowd of about 200 people cheered when Depp’s lawyers came out after the verdict. “Johnny for president!” one man yelled repeatedly.

Greg McCandless, 51, a retired private detective from Reston, Virginia, stood outside the courthouse wearing a pirate hat and red head scarf, a nod to Depp’s famous role as Capt. Jack Sparrow in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series.

“I do believe that there was defamation, and I do believe that it did hurt his career,” McCandless said. “I think the jury heard the evidence, and the verdict was just.”

In evaluating Heard’s counterclaims, jurors considered three statements by a lawyer for Depp who called her allegations a hoax. They found she was defamed by one of them, in which the lawyer claimed that she and friends “spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight,” and called police, Associated Press reported.

Sydni Porter, 30, drove an hour from her home in Maryland to show support for Heard. She said the verdict was disappointing, but not surprising, and sends a message to women that “as much evidence as you have (of abuse), it’s never going to be enough.”

The jury found Depp should receive $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, but the judge said state law caps punitive damages at $350,000, meaning Depp was awarded $10.35 million.

Singer-composer KK, whose real name was Krishnakumar Kunnath, died in Kolkata on Tuesday at the age of 53. He was in the city for a two-day concert, and took ill during an event at Nazrul Mancha. “He was brought dead to the hospital around 10 pm,” said a CMRI hospital staff. He died of a suspected heart attack, The Indian Express reported.

According to sources, KK felt unwellduring the concert. He complained of uneasiness during the interval but performed till the end of the event. Post that, he was taken to a five-star hotel in Esplanade, where his health deteriorated, and he died before he could reach the hospital. The concert had been organised on behalf of Gurudas College. The singer was in the city for a two-day event. KK also posted photos from the concert hours before his death. “Pulsating gig tonight at Nazrul Mancha. Vivekananda College !! Love you all,” he wrote.

KK is survived by his wife and two children. West Bengal Sports and Youth Affairs Minister Arup Biswas, who rushed to the hospital immediately after KK’s death, told IANS that the body has been sent for post-mortem. “His family members have been informed. They are likely to reach Kolkata early on Wednesday morning,” he said, according The Indian Express.

As soon as the news of his death broke, people from all walks of life paid tribute. Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted, “Saddened by the untimely demise of noted singer Krishnakumar Kunnath popularly known as KK. His songs reflected a wide range of emotions as struck a chord with people of all age groups. We will always remember him through his songs. Condolences to his family and fans. Om Shanti.”